gospels.net

Secret Mark, part 4

August 6th, 2009 by Andrew Bernhard under Secret Gospel of Mark. 1 Comment.

Hedrick also contributed an article to the special Secret Mark issue of the Journal of Early Christian Studies (see previous post):

Hedrick, Charles W. “The Secret Gospel of Mark: Stalemate in the Academy.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 11 (2003): 133-45.

Hedrick provides a summary of the discovery and contents of the Clement letter describing Secret Mark. He then addresses the very sensitive issue of why Smith’s publications about the letter might have caused such a “firestorm of criticism,” namely because Smith suggested in a single sentence in his scholarly book, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark, that Jesus might have instituted a homosexual baptismal rite [page 251: "In this baptism the disciple was united with Jesus. The union may have been physical (see above, commentary on III.13 and pp. 185f - there is no telling how far symbolism went in Jesus' rite), but the essential thing was that the disciple was possessed by Jesus' spirit"].  Hedrick comments,

I have been asked in public gatherings, after presenting papers on Secret Mark, whether the negative reaction in the academy was due to homophobia. I cannot answer that question-I seriously doubt that anyone can. But the question is natural enough, in light of the strong response to Smith’s one line about homosexuality in both his books. On the other hand, homophobia may well have contributed to the disappearance of Clement’s letter. A homophobe who was also deeply religious would, not surprisingly, be greatly upset at the disrespect Smith’s suggestion accords Jesus. In addition, the “endorsement” of homosexuality by Jesus, which Smith’s suggestion implies, creates a practical problem for religious institutions rejecting homosexuality as a sin, but promoting communal monasteries and convents. It is understandable that some people might feel it would be better had the document never been discovered.”

He goes on to lament the situation surrounding the Secret Gospel of Mark:

In the case of Clement’s letter and Secret Mark, however, now thirty years after the publication of the editio principes, Smith’s discovery and its significance for reconstructing Christian origins, has never generally been taken up as a part of the raw data of New Testament scholarship. We have spent more time debating a hypothetical text (Q) than we have assessing the significance and implications of an extant text (Secret Mark).

Hedrick’s summary of the situation in 2003 is as follows:

1. “The letter of Clement definitely exists (or existed at one time).”
2. “The current whereabouts of the manuscript are unknown.”
3. “Morton Smith did not forge the manuscript. If it is a forgery, it is an ancient forgery, earlier than the eighteenth century.” (Certainly, some would disagree with Hedrick on this particular point.)
4. “The manuscript leaves containing Clement’s letter were definitely the two bound in the final leaves of the Voss volume.”
5. “Clementine scholars have, in the main, accepted the authenticity of Clement’s letter (it is included among the standard texts of Clement’s writings in a 1980 German publication). If it is a forgery, it at least does not appear to be a modern forgery perpetrated by Morton Smith.” (On the question of whether Morton Smith forged the letter, see my comment on point 3; as for whether “Clementine scholars” have generally accepted its authenticity, I must confess that I am not sure. I usually see the topic addressed by New Testament rather than Clementine scholars.)

Hedrick’s final section in the article deals with the question, “Does Secret Mark have a future?” His answer is that, although an authenticated letter might provide us with valuable information about Secret Mark,

The early reactions to the letter of Clement and Secret Mark, published shortly after Smith’s books, in effect, have discredited Smith in the eyes of many of his colleagues, and stopped the discussion. Some think that the manuscript does not even exist, while others think Smith invented Secret Mark, and personally forged Clement’s letter. Others think the text reflects a genuine second-century tradition. Unless the academy can reach a closer agreement on Secret Mark’s past, the secret gospel has no real future.